Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Welcome everybody to the House Committee on General and Housing. It is Tuesday, 04/07/2026. We are going to discuss, and we have witnesses about several Senate bills. The two that are going to take most of the afternoon are S89, which is about survivor benefits, and S-three 28, which is an act relating to housing, many aspects of housing, and common interest communities. Our first witness is none other than Alex Farrell, the Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Community Development. Alex, welcome. Thank you. I think we can get away without introducing ourselves.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: I think so. I think you all. For the record, Farrell, Commissioner of Housing This

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: one? Yeah. Oh, okay. Woah.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: I didn't want you all to think I was taller than I am.

[Unidentified committee member]: That's why mine stopped.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: You never have to mess with that one. Thank

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: you, Mr. Chair. Three twenty eight, there's a fair amount of overlap with your seven seventy five. Right. I'll start with the different approach to municipal plans and house targets in them.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, Alex, one thing just to make it clear. Sure. We're in discussions with the Senate Committee about what would be the ultimate vehicle, and the Senate Committee is aware that seven seventy five, there's a huge overlap between the three twenty eight, seven seventy five in terms of subject, that the treatment is different. And in some ways, think what's happening is the Senate had less time than we do because they had two committees, so they only meet in the morning, and while they were working on their bill, we were refining ours, including with input from you, so that we are aware that there's a difference, and essentially the call that we're going to have to make in the next day or two is do we just load everything from seven seventy five back in here, because we don't know what's going to happen to seven seventy five in the Senate, or can they load up seven seventy five? That's all, in my mind, going to happen in the next few days. I don't know if that helps, but just to clarify.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: Well, does. I'd say aspects of seven seventy five that they've now had a chance to cover in the Senate, such as special assessment bonds, you all had time to really dive in. They got enough of an overview and discussion to get

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I saw that Michael Gaughan was going to testify. Did you see that he did?

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: I saw that he did, and the committee

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: was very comfortable and supportive, I

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: see the logic in bringing

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: those pieces over to One way you can really help us today is if, I mean, say anything you want to say, but one way you can help us is, if there's any aspect of 03/28 that you find superior in some way to what made

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: it into July, please don't hesitate to let us know. Sure, I appreciate that. Then why don't I, made a couple of notes and in some ways

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: they touch on where

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: there's overlap. So I suppose I'll start then with section one, which is how they addressed municipal plans. Now, they did take a different approach. They put it right at 04/1982, and this was with input from the regional planning commissions and the League of Cities and Towns. Now, you'll likely recall that the language that you all produced was in consultation with our team, with myself, and it was in 4388. And I think VLCT was amenable to the language that we worked on at July, but ultimately they and the RPCs sort of agreed that this is a straightforward approach here, 03/28. All that said, I am perfectly comfortable with the language here in 03/28. It accomplishes enough of what I was hoping to accomplish in getting municipalities to contemplate housing targets in the municipal plan that I'm perfectly comfortable with this. If the RPCs and VLCT feel this is easier for municipalities to understand incorporate going forward, I'm comfortable with it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: One of the differences also, and I think it actually had to do with discussion that we had here. My memory is that there was some reluctance to put an analysis of regulatory and other constraints literally in their plan, and that where it's along, it's in a memo to you. And so, our bill, am I right that that was a concern? Tom, do you remember that? We were just worried that it was better to put it in a It was getting very complicated and that we wanted to simplify it, and part of that simplification was we just put it in a memo to you. Do you have any feelings about that one way or the other?

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: No, well, I had a similar concern, and I believe when we discussed this, one of the remedies was callbacks to existing reports. We said you may utilize, trying to find the language that was used here, but you may utilize existing, let me just see how we phrased it. May incorporate by reference any information or policies identified in other housing assessments adopted by the governing body identified in the regional plan or published in the statewide housing needs assessment. I felt like that was a good way to call back and reference materials that have already been produced. Now, this language, I don't see that makes that explicit callback, but those materials are there. They're produced for every municipality, and the PLCT and the RPCs feel that this is an easier way to get at this, then I'm perfectly comfortable with that. Still deferring to the committee.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, so PLCT is comfortable with it. Just language. They are. Yeah.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: They are.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This is simpler, Hi Leonora, can you hear us? Let me see. Me. Okay, great. Thank you.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thanks.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: It is shorter, it's more straightforward, but it does, you know, it makes reference to the things that I sought to make reference to. I wanted them to specifically look at their local housing needs assessment, describe what actions the municipality may take. So candidly, I think this is at the very, at the very least the step of the direction that I was hoping to take. Want municipalities thinking about plan this does.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Good to know.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: So my thoughts on section two, the way they approach the treasurer's credit facility. Now, you all have a call out where the treasurer may use 1% specifically for bulk purchase, it's clear that that's not in addition to the 12.5%. It's our language to make that all clear there. I don't see that incorporated in 03/28. I think that's okay. My assumption would be you provided that language to make it clear that that could be a function of this funding. It could be anyway, but I think as I understand it, you all wanted it to be clear that that should at least be considered by the treasurer. That could still be accomplished with the language here in 03/28. Generally speaking, I'm comfortable with the policy as laid out here in section two, the increase of the treasure facility and how it would be used.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm looking as passed by the Senate.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: I am also looking as passed by the Senate.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And there is no section two?

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: I'm sorry, section three.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Section three. Okay.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: Okay. What offer is so the asterisk to my I support the policy laid out there, I'll defer to AOA if they have any thoughts on the increase from 10 to 12.5. I don't know one way or another if they have taken a position on that, so that's my one caveat. So supportive of the policy priorities laid out and how to utilize that. I don't have strong feelings about the study on common interest communities, the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: pledge council study report. Okay. We're probably gonna We've asked council to include that it's not just about legal issues. It's also about legal, financial, lending, and grant application issues. Right.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: Moving on page four now, section five, allowing VIDA to lend, again another, I believe this language is more, if not exactly the same, it's largely the same in both bills.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, it has to change VIDA. It does not accurately reflect the agreement between VIDA. What happened was, and let's not take time on this, but just very quickly, so you know, VIDA and VHFA agreed on some language. It's more complicated and lengthy than this language. And without knowing exactly why, counsel in an admirable moment of work decided to simplify it. Unfortunately, the simplification had unintended consequences with projects which are partly residential and partly commercial, where VITA might participate, and so they asked us to please return to their original agreement, and our council is working on that.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: All right, well, I have a broad understanding of the agreement, not a specific one, but a broader understanding of

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the agreement. I'm supportive of it.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: New capital in the housing space, think is good. Likewise, section six, service supported housing, supportive abyss, no issues there. So I'm going to move right down to section seven, which is the changes to municipal zoning, particularly as regards manufactured housing. This is all, we're supportive of this. We've sought similar changes in the past and would like to see this.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We're taking, we are trying to divide this bill up with house environment, and the tentative agreement is that B is ours, whereas D and eight are theirs. We did ask under section D, you see D there, The change from allowed to permitted is very important, and counsel told us in response to questioning by us that there was no definition of permitted use in current law, she has provided such a definition, I think it's okay, we'll hear it today, but then we'll transmit it over to the

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: other committee. Yes. What would be the difference either when?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Difference between allowed and permitted. All across The United States, zoning ordinances usually have two categories of use. One is called permitted and one is called conditional or allowed. Example would be in a single family zone, a single family house is permitted. It means you just walk in and get a building permit. A gas station or a convenience store or a church or a halfway house, they're okay in a residential use, but you want to have some authority over how many and where. Those are called conditional uses, and they can't be approved without either the zoning administrator or the DRB or somebody approving them.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: So allow is synonymous with conditional?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, yes, but it's not defined, and so I suggested to counsel that they be a little more precise. Okay. Elizabeth?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Thanks. I have a question, backing up to the developmental disability housing. I I paused for a second to check to make sure that I was right in the way that I'm phrasing this. But the federal government the the the president put forward his budget, I believe, which includes a fortification of centers for independent living, for people with developmental disabilities. And so I'm asking out of ignorance here. Let's say for fundses that a tranche of financial support came through from the federal government for that. What would happen to the funding that we set aside for this program in that case? I don't know. I'm asking. I'm not suspicious. I just don't know what the process is for duplicative funding.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: I I I don't know. I really don't have much awareness of the federal budget contemplation nor even funding that was set aside in the house's budget related to this.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I strongly suspect, but don't know, I am equally there with our witness, Elizabeth, in my ignorance. I strongly suspect if there were substantial federal funding, we would re rethink the entire funding package, including the funding that we had committed. Although at the moment, until the senate passes budget, we haven't committed anything.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Right. And, so I I'm not suggesting that, because this was just the it's sort of like the governor setting forth his budget, and it has to go through a legislative process and and so forth. And so I'm not suggesting that we, 'd I I am let me be clear. I'm not suggesting that we delay anything or change anything. I just wondered if our funding went through and the federal funding came through, could the funding that we set aside be used for other measures, or would it go back into the general fund? Or what what becomes of that?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: If we appropriate something for a purpose, it's committed to that purpose until we decide otherwise. Okay. That's So federal funding would be in addition unless we changed it.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Go ahead, Alex.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: Alright. Well, thank you. So I believe we left off we we ended that discussion of permitted versus allowed at the bottom of page eight, which brought us to page nine. Now, I'll flag not knowing. So the end of that section, lines five through seven, I don't know whether that'll be your jurisdiction from theirs. They are. Well, then I'll offer that I'm not, maybe I'll discuss with them when it gets to that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, you can tell us.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: I don't know what's, I was seeking to understand what's trying to be achieved with this change on lines five through seven, striking that second half of that sentence? I don't necessarily have an immediate issue with it. Just I'm sure there's a specific use case that someone was trying to solve for with this. I just don't know what that may be.

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Okay.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: All right, so that brings us to section eight, which you said is going to be their jurisdiction. I don't have any strong feelings about that section in any event.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Section nine is also theirs.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: Alright, and that's fine.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Section 9A is ours.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: 9A.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's page 13.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: Oh, I see. Okay, so you don't need to know about That's great. Okay, so you don't need to know about the designation program. No. That's an important fix. I'll take it up a bit. Farm worker housing report, likewise, this is important. Think it's worthwhile.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Just so you know, the agriculture committee is hearing this on a flyby tomorrow, and we'll hear back from them tomorrow.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: Oh, great.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The wording may change.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: Okay. So that's the whole bill, but the short version is there's nothing of particular concern for me in here. I am broadly supportive

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: of the

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: thing, and have a strong, strong feeling into that interaction.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Appreciate

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: it. Thank you. Our

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: next witness is none other than the distinguished Chris Rutland, the Joint Fiscal Office, is going to, and we are now dealing with S89, I want to update the committee. I think this relates to Chris. After discussion last week, we asked our council to put together language that included people who were licensed clinical social workers or mental health workers as defined in state statute who were unfortunately killed in the line of duty when riding with a police officer. Since it is fairly common now, for good reasons, that police officers, especially when they are going out to intervene in the most dangerous situation they face, which is marital or spousal disputes, to bring a social worker or a clinical person like that, and so we asked counsel to put together what that would look like, and the current draft of S89, which is draft 2.1, includes those individuals, and Chris is going to take us through the fiscal one. On that, do you have access to your Yes, you do. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Thank you for joining us here.

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No problem. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Chris Rutland from the Joint Fiscal Office and I used to see you all the time, Mr. Chair, you were in appropriations. Maybe you got promoted up here in Acton.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I appropriations would view it as a devotion.

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It totally depends on everyone's day, right?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, it's great to be with you all,

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I think in the sixth session that I've been here. This is the first time I've ever been in this committee.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Which you know what, that's kind of fun. Why don't we do a quick version of a hello?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Gayle Pezzo, I represent Chittenden 20 in Boldchester. Nice to meet you. Hello,

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm Mary E.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Howard, and I represent Rutland City District 6. Hi, Saudia LaMont, Lamoille Washington District.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Marc Mihaly, Plainfield, Caledonia, Marshfield.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Tom Charlton, Athens, Chester, Drapfen, and Windham.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And we have Elizabeth Burrows with us on the screen. Elizabeth, you want to introduce yourself, and also Leonora Dodge.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Hi, Chris. I'm Elizabeth Burrows. Forgive me for not being on camera, but I don't think you'd like to see me right now.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Hi, Chris, Leonora.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Hi, Leonora. Okay, good. All right, go ahead, Chris. Oh, I

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Debbie Dolgin, I was then saying, John's very conquering herby. That's what you get for telling her she's not here.

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'll start off, Mr. Chair, by previewing to the committee that this will be a thoroughly unsatisfying fiscal note, because this is one of those bills that I cannot give you a good estimate of what it will cost. And that in and of itself, I think it's important for everybody to know. Just a little bit of background because this is not a committee I regularly interact with, but JFO typically steps in and writes a fiscal note on a bill once it has sort of cleared a policy committee and it's heading into a money committee and it's got a quantifiable fiscal impact to the state. And we do that to inform the budget writers, your colleagues in appropriations, as well as in ways in consent finance. They So understand how much revenue they're either giving up or bringing in from all the other bills they pass, so they can build a budget for the state that makes sense. So the fiscal notes will, when we can put a number on it, we'll try to do so. And when we can't put a number on it, we'll tell you why we can't. And we try to give you a little bit of context so you understand what's going on with this bill, what's current law, what's being proposed, why is it something I need to face? So I followed this bill for several sessions now or various iterations of it, and, you know, the the fiscal conclusions don't meaningfully change that much from draft to draft. What I did here was highlight on this draft note here some of the things that I am being presumptuous by assuming the committee is gonna make some changes, and this would reflect what those changes would be. But there's draft watermarks all over this place because until you all vote out language, we're not gonna post something live with a link to it until it's something they can post. So that's my way of saying the yellow stuff is sort of what has changed since the as passed by Senate. And I was walking through this at a high level. So I failed to highlight the additional job occupation that the chair had alluded to about the licensed social workers or mental health counseling, but they are mentioned in that first paragraph. At the end of the day, if you're expanding the eligibility of this program to cover more occupations, conceivably there is a potential for more claims to be filed, What that's common I can't tell you is how many, there's not a direct correlation between how many occupations are included, how many positions that is, and what the likelihood of filing a claim would be. People are not exposed to the same levels of risk from occupation to occupation. And since this is a prospective extension, you wouldn't have claims from occupation related deaths that occurred fifty years ago, all of a sudden coming out of the woodwork, which for lots of reasons could be very problematic to try to adjudicate or really get your head around. So I think what's really important for this committee to know right now is that the benefit is $80,000 The legislature expanded that a few years ago, used to be $50,000 There have been various proposals over the years to expand the benefit to cover additional classes of occupations and employees. I highlighted what the proposed changes are in this bill, where it would cover law enforcement, certain corrections employees, certain PCS employees, classified medical employees, state operated therapeutic community residents or inpatient psychiatric hospital units, and persons licensed to practice clinical social work or mental health counseling. There is, I think you heard testimony that there's enough money in the fund to pay out one additional 20. I think the state, you all have exercised fiscal prudence in how you've approached this benefit. You put money into the fund when there are claims and there is a need to put money into the fund. A few years back, I think it was FY '25, there was a February transfer into the fund. But for years, there were no claims being paid out of the stock. They went a pretty long period of time with no claims. And then in a very short period of time, I think there were four claims. So that $220,000 was sufficient to make sure those four claims are paid out and you'd have a balance of around 95,000 in the fund. So that's enough to pay out one claim and some administrative expenses. I did flag in here that the treasurer's office had noted that particularly around the occupation related illness claims, those things can be really tricky to parse out. They're not as cut and dry as line of duty death. So there are times when you may need to bring in some outside third party medical experts to review this paperwork and help advise the board on what to do when these claims are made. You all, I believe, have contemplated putting in language that would allow the treasurer to use some of the funding from Essex to pay those costs.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: They requested that we we And I understand. I did so I

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: did note that final bullet point on page three, you know, but at the end of the day, you know, I think this bill is one of those things that in government, we all really like to know the answer, and we'd like to know cause and effect, and we like to know how what we're gonna do today is going to lead to something happening in the future. This is one of those situations that it's a known unknown. You know, I think the policy decisions about who to cover through this benefit, and what is the benefit for, are a little bit different and in parallel to the fiscal, because I can't tell you that if you expand it to cover this occupation instead of that occupation, it's gonna lead to an additional cost. Because fortunately, these claims are very rare. I don't expect whether you pass this bill or not is going to change that reality. I won't be able to tell you how many additional claims this expanded universe might lead to. It might be zero. We just don't know. But you all as legislators, I think, from a fiscal side, just need to have comfort with that level of uncertainty when you move forward on bills like this. Sometimes we don't always know. It's not really like the pensions where we spend lots, which Mr. Scherer knows I spend a lot of time on, where you hire a very expensive actuary to make projections because that is a known cost you're gonna have to pay out. This is an unknown cost. You don't know when you're gonna have to pay it out. You don't know how many times you have to pay it So for the dollar figures involved, I would not recommend that you over complicate this by having a lot of projections and actuarial work and things like that. It's an $80,000 benefit. It doesn't come up super frequently, very fortunately for everybody, let's hope that never changes. And there's enough money in there to do one more claim. And I think the legislature needs to just understand that should additional claims come up, you're gonna have to find a need to put more money into this fund. And by default, that funding source is the general fund, unless another revenue source comes up.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Questions of Chris Rutland? Yes.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: God forbid in one year that there are more claims than usual, is there such a thing as running out of funds?

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So this is an interesting question because we talk a lot about you can't find a future legislature, but in practice, you guys do it all the time. Time you pass a federal obligation bond, you're binding a future legislature. Every time you make a commitment, you're binding a future legislature. It's $80,000 think it is a question for a future legislature, whether a future legislature would bulk get funding on a word that was made or whether they view this as a commitment that they need to honor. I think we all suspect probably where people would land on that, but special funds can run into deficit. That is a really bad fiscal practice. When that happens, the general fund has to bring them into balance. So at the end of the day, I think it's ultimately a political question. Great.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, Mary. I

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: just want to say that the treasurer has one year to pay the benefits. My

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: understanding is that it's taken out of the land.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, I can help you. But

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: that the power transfers of appropriations. And I would like to let council to make sure my memory is correct. Yeah, because to this question, there was in the Senate, there was language that said the treasurer had up to a year to pay out a claim. Right. And presumably that would give the legislature time to do something to put money in. It's reference to the e board. Right. And now that was taken up, but there's language that says the e board has the ability to transfer appropriations of the fund to make sure that there's money to that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: When we're not in session.

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: When you're not in session. So the

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: e board When we're not in session. Yeah, right.

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So that should be a way to cover that because if you're not in session, e board can move appropriations around And when you're in session, you all can pay it through the budget adjustment.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Also as a reminder that the firefighters already have this benefit. Same

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: at the end ups. Yes.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: How much is currently in the fund?

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: 95, page two, $95,406 as of March 16.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Can I ask another question?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, please, and then Gayle you

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: have another question? Sorry, and maybe this is for Legg Council, and maybe it's already been brought up. I'm thinking of nineeleven, if we had some catastrophic event such as that, where multiple people would then be eligible for this. What happens then?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: A future legislature would, or a board, would face this anew, and they could decide, well, we said we'd do this, we're gonna take 10 people at 80,000 and find $800,000, or they could say, excuse me for even contemplating this, but they could say, that's too much, we're gonna pay them 40,000 each and buy 400,000, or they could say, too bad, I mean, they'd have to amend the law, but they could.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Okay, thank you. Yes? So that 95, that's there, and you said that's one benefit, if that's not used, is that carried over? Yeah, it's just, What's it's the base that you look at each year for this particular fund? Like where did that 95 come from?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's from the fund.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's just been sitting there.

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Chris, what's it called? It's the Emergency Personnel and Survivor Benefit special fund.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: But it starts out with a certain amount. That fund is a place where we

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: need to deal with this.

[Unidentified committee member]: She wants to know how we originally got it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It was put in there.

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's the residual balance that was in the fund. You know, there's a $220,000 transfer in. There were four claims paid out. There had been

[Unidentified committee member]: From the general fund, though, originally?

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's all general fund billing.

[Unidentified committee member]: So it's originally from the general fund.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: So every year that 02/20

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: No.

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No. The residual balance in the fund carries So that 95,000, if it's not spent for whatever this year and there were demands on it, yet it would be available

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: next year. Just the 95.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. We don't, as a routine matter, we don't transfer funds into special fund unless there's a need. So for example, in this coming budget, you won't see an extra $100,000 just put in there for the hell of it. It's just left there until there needs to be money in it. Any other questions for Chris? I have a thought for you. I just want to emphasize, I think you know this, but I want to emphasize that you have the new categories, e. Family service employees that are employed by DCF, then you have classified medical employees, okay. At the moment, in here, subject committee discretion is another category, and that category is limited in the sense that the line of duty definition limits it to those who are accompanying law enforcement officers, and I just wanted to So it's not a blanket thing And like the

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I was planning to wordsmith that clause a little bit once the committee lands on some language.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You wanna tell us your thoughts?

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No, think just whenever you all agree on Oh, you're gonna work Smith in here.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, okay, great. Great. I wanted to leave

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: a bread crumb there, so you all knew that I was paying attention to it and then I remembered to talk about it. And then whenever you all pass He caught it. He caught your breadcrumbs.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, you know, I've been listening

[Unidentified committee member]: to him for four years. Oh, right, right.

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I don't know if you were ever really listening, I'm still sharing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Learning and learning. Thank you very much, Chris. Thank you. I appreciate your coming to see us.

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Sure, thanks for having me.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Our next witness is our distinguished counsel, Sophie Saudia And I think what we'll do is, after we're done with Sophie, this is just on S89, we'll take a break even though I have a feeling it won't take until 02:30 to have this discussed.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Good afternoon. Sophie Sedatney for the Office of Registered Council. And as has been noted, there is an additional draft since we reviewed this on Friday. So this adds in the two additional categories that were discussed on Friday, and again, went back and relistened on Friday afternoon, so there was sort of two approaches. One was a sort of more narrow licensed folk and then the other was a more general anyone that's been traveling with or enforcement in responding to these kinds of situations. So again, is the more narrow version, but that's also a possibility for the committee consider a more general version. But currently this adds under the category of emergency employees, persons licensed to practice clinical social work and persons licensed to practice clinical mental health counselling and both of those are defined in those two chapters referenced in title 26. And then as the chair noted, in defining what line of duty means to each category for clinical social workers and clinical mental health counsellors, it would be accompanying law enforcement officers in responding to a situation involving an individual or individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. So it wouldn't include that occupation related illness, which is the other way that folks can receive this benefit, or their survivors can receive this benefit. And then this just has, again, I had to break this up because of the prospective element. So survivors of emergency personnel, because it's different for the different categories, this now explains that those in subdivision A and B, so that's the current folks, that's the firefighters and the emergency medical personnel, same language as currently in the statute, that they're eligible to receive the benefit if they die in the line of duty or of an occupation related illness. And then those next categories, C through F, those are your law enforcement, the DOC folks, classified family services and the medical personnel in the state hospitals. They would be eligible to receive, if they die, a form of duty or an occupation related illness on or off the 07/01/2026. This is prospective. And then finally, C is this new category, and that's for those that, again, the licensed social workers and mental health counselors, they would be eligible to receive it if they die in the line of duty, but it doesn't include that language about occupation related illness, and again, was prospective after 07/01/2026. So those were the new changes from Friday.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Can I, I gotta ask you one clarifying question, because I'm not sure I understand? I am on page four, I am on your retroactivity section, the three. By the way, Elizabeth, I see your hand up, Just give me a minute with this and then we'll go to you. I get b and c. Go over again what you're doing in A.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: A is just the current statutory language, so it doesn't contribute, that's for folks now. So, I mean, if a firefighter was to be killed today in line of duty, they would be eligible to receive the benefit. It doesn't have the same debt often. Right,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: but B is law enforcement officers. Right. But you have A and B up there.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Look at the paragraph. 30 one-seventy one.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, A and B are

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: the folks that are currently covered by current law? Oh, a

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: second, maybe I was looking in the wrong place. I just thought it was over inclusive, but 3,171, A is firefighters, oh, and B is emergency medical, they're covered already.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: It's So, the existing that

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: first paragraph, A, is for people who are already covered. And then B is for?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The folks that came over from the Senate, so those are the few categories in leading law enforcement, department of corrections, etcetera.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Then C is the

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: most recent addition.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, got it. Okay, Elizabeth, Well, first of you got anything else, Sophie, before I open it up to having you cross examined by I don't know how many members of this committee?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, that's fine.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, Elizabeth.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Thank you. I just want to explain where I where I'm coming from. I two things. First of all, I really appreciate the work that you've done on on this, Sophie. I think you understand that I am trying to get away from the job definition and really turn it towards the situation and who's covered in the scenario versus who's covered in in the the profession. Not overall, just the the additional people who ride along in emergencies. And, because I think it's but does the same thing but allows for the changing nature of those of those people who ride along. One of the things that occurred when I when I served on health care, one of the debates that we had in our committee was whether and how to get peer to peer specialists licensed. And it was a philosophical debate because the nature of peer to peer is outside of licensure. Licensing actually is counter to the notion of peer. And so it doesn't mean that peer to peer specialists are not trained. It just means that they are not, by their nature philosophically, they're not necessarily licensed per se. And so I I wanted to be able to and and that was when when Morning Fox began that program at the Williston Barracks, he was using or they were using peer to peer specialists to ride along with Vermont State Police. I don't know whether that is the case today, but I I want to try to encompass that notion so that people who are because peer to peer specialists are people who have a deep knowledge of some of these mental health emergency scenarios, and they place themselves in those in those settings because they know how to help. And so I wanted to try to capture that by defining the event versus defining the licensure, if that makes sense.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I wasn't sure if the goal here was folks that are riding along to help with an individual that's having a mental health crisis was kind of what I understood the concern to be. But there is, you know, or the alternative is if the law enforcement officer is, I guess, peer to peer sounds to me like, are you asking about including individuals that are there to support the officer rather than to support the individual that's having a situation.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think she's essentially saying that it's, I mean, this raises issues perhaps we cannot deal with, but I understand Elizabeth to be saying the problem is that people who are put into this situation and are useful, let's say, in intervention, I'll call it intervention in a spousal dispute or a domestic dispute, which is I know about the most dangerous part of police work. I mean, more police get shot in this situation or stabbed or whatever, and so police are bringing bringing along specialists who help. I think, am I right, Elizabeth, that what you're saying is even in that narrow definitional situation, a lot of the people who are some of the people who are involved riding along are not licensed. They're counselors, they're peer to peer, or whatever. Am I right that that's your concern?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: That is right. Sometimes they're volunteers. Sometimes they're professionals. Sometimes they're employed directly by the department. Sometimes they're you know, they're not. And so that was why I was trying to change the focus to the scenario versus the professional status of who's in the scenario. Does that make sense?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. There are two separate issues, if I can parse them. One is the who. It's still if you limit it to people who are ride alongs, one is the who, do they have to be licensed or not, and another is who they work for. Right now, I do think this is agnostic, this triathl Elizabeth is agnostic as to who they work for. They could be volunteers. Right. Yep. But I guess my question for you, Sophie, is I'm gonna just talk about now members of the committee. I'm talking for myself. The reason I suggested persons licensed to practice, you know, licensed social workers, etcetera, is I was just worried about opening the door too much, trying to figure out how to define it. I was just worried about saying anyone who's riding along with a law enforcement officer to assist in responding, da da da da. I was just worried that it would open the door too much, but I think this is something where I like counsel and the committee to comment. I think it's an interesting, important policy. Gayle, how's Gayle? So I have

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: a couple of questions because I've heard a couple of times that if someone accompanying a police officer and if it was a mental health, what if it doesn't include anything that has to do with mental health that's a domestic or it's, you know, DCF or something to do with a child in danger.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, it doesn't say here at all. I just was I was the I'm sorry. I was the one who was using as an example a domestic dispute. It's anything that they're riding along to assist. Okay.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It says riding along to assist an individual or individuals with having a mental health does.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Attribute law enforcement officers in responding to a situation involving an individual or individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. So, why is that specific? It's in the language, and this is up to us. It's balancing how much you wanna open the door and how specific you wanna be versus, you know, how generally

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: So, I'd like to open another door, and I know it's very controversial. To say that a social worker or someone that's a mental health clinician, like separating them out, when you're in that field, you could very easily have a gun to your head or a knife to your back. Same thing with nurses, same thing with any profession where you're dealing with people that they're not necessarily in their right state of mind. So, I mean, I think the bill is great. I just think that it excludes people that also are put in that situation more often than people would think.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Members of the committee? I mean, you know, it's a question. This is just there's nothing magical about this. It's just a line drawing problem. Mhmm. I mean, we can the reason I was attracted to the idea of doing something here rather than nothing, I mean, we can take it out. We could take out G and F here, just take them out. But the reason that it attracted me, actually, and again I'm speaking for myself here, this is an area which is generally fairly, what's the word, benefit rich. There are big benefits for people who die in these circumstances that exist already. There is the federal benefit of like, For

[Unidentified committee member]: good reason.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: $460,000 there's the workers' comp, gives you benefits for etcetera, etcetera, and what attracted me about the draft that we got was that it included classified family service employees and classified medical employees because they don't get the federal benefits. They get the others, but not the federal, and I was interested in what Elizabeth was saying, because I'm very familiar with the ride along thing, but I also was attracted to the fact that licensed clinical social workers or licensed mental health workers also are not eligible for the federal benefit, And so, felt like this was a way of sort of slightly equalizing the benefit, just slightly a movement in that direction. But I'm not, I really feel like it's up to the committee to decide what they want to do. Go.

[Unidentified committee member]: Alright, well, I'll say how I feel. I would like to I think that we're at a good place with the draft that we have, And I would like to move with the draft that we have, and I think that it is a good balance. And we'll have success when we have to get it back over there again. So I'd like to keep it as clean as possible, but I think we need an attempt a bit more, and I think that's good. But I just have concerns about continuing down a certain way that could just This has been a really long journey with this help for some of us who have been here for a while, and I'd really like to do this get done. So I'm trying to keep it as passed over as possible, but I think this is a good addition and I understand why. So I'd like to strip draft 2.1.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other comments by the committee. Remember where we are. We have our council.

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Mary, do you have an opinion?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, it's weakened this weekend. Have you heard of this bill? Yeah, have you ever heard of this?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Year after year I've heard of this, you can't put a price on someone's life. And to the survivors, I mean, for a family, it means whether they can stay in their home, whether their children can have a normal life, have money set aside for education, And I think this bill is extremely necessary. I am happy with the draft.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: Okay.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: The way it is, it has to go, if it passes here, it has to go back to the Senate and they will take a look at it. I think have thoroughly, thoroughly gone through this bill over and over. And as I said before, the firefighters already have this bill. They already have the benefits, and I doubt that they went through the scrutiny that we're going through. I would be, you you can, as Emilie said, you can raise the bar and let other groups in, but I'm happy the way the draft does now and I think we should go forward with this. Can I ask a question? Sophie, when this was in the Senate, did it go to Senate appropriations?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other opinions, come on, if you got any opinions, folks, you're sitting here like

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: This bill passed, the committee and the senate unanimously passed the Senate unanimously, and the previous bill has passed this committee twice. So I mean, how much more are we going

[Unidentified committee member]: No, I think right now we're just having a conversation about whether this draft or not about not passing, but going to a different version. We can't vote today, but I think No.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: But this

[Unidentified committee member]: I'm ready. I'm just I'm

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: wanting to know, are people okay with this draft or they want something else?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yes. Yeah. Well, I mean, I agree with Mary that and I I mean and to Gayle's point about, you know, how much are we gonna open it up, open it up, because we also heard testimony about property managers getting beat up. Now, like, that's become dangerous. So but I agree with Mary that, you know, this we have to stop somewhere, and

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: this is a good bill. And it's just a starting point. The only thought I have in my side is that it's just saying mental health, because there's so many different reasons. I was engaged to a cop, so I know this There's so many different reasons why you're pulled into a call that have nothing to do with a mental health issue.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: As opposed to, for example, a marital dispute.

[Unidentified committee member]: And sometimes people start with something and then people bring more into it at a later time when they learn different things or other things, so I think this is pretty expansive. Is

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: there any other comment that people wish to make on this? What I'm hearing at the moment is that we're gonna not give you further drafting instructions pending final committee discussion and vote. I will circle back with Chris

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to see if there's, what other tweaks it was that he's concerned about, so.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think what he was referring to is tweaks in his joint, his JFO Fred Crumbs, Fred Crumbs. Elizabeth,

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: yes.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: My preference would be that if we are not going to tweak this current draft that we revert back to the draft that we were

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: sent. Thanks. Okay. That will be easy enough if we want to do that when we're finally voting. Yes?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Could we change the word mental health to an unstable situation, or unstable circumstances, or is that too broad?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Does clinical social workers catch the others that you had in mind?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Does clinical social workers catch other people you had in mind? Because it's not just clinical mental health counselors, it's also clinical social workers.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: See, I'm not talking about the profession, I'm talking about The situation. The situation.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. He's thinking about-

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a state crisis instead

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: of a mental health crisis. Right, unstable crisis situation, something like that, that shows that another person besides a police officer, because they're not always trained in de escalation as a social worker or mental health person might be.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We can say mental or emotional.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean it could either be with respect to clinical social workers and clinical mental health counsellors accompanying your enforcement in responding to an emergency situation, or it could be to a situation involving an individual or individuals experiencing a mental health or emotional crisis. So I think those I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think that looks better. That

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: works better. Elizabeth? I mean, love it, but it works better. Elizabeth?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: We're not talking about people who are just riding along. We're talking about people who have been asked by the law enforcement to come to provide expertise. Right? And so they wouldn't just have a or that's what I'm talking about. So they wouldn't just be a ride along. They would be somebody who was solicited by a law enforcement officer or emergency

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Someone that's there for a specific professional purpose.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Tom, if you want us to comment. I'm just trying to

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: get my brain in sync with what Elizabeth was pointing out. So not just a ride along, certainly. It's just there to but I mean, I can think of other professionals that might, you might have a fire department's chaplain that gets taken to the scene because who knows what, something terrible's gone down and then the house blows up.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner of Housing and Community Development)]: I don't know, I mean,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Mary?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I think this bill is becoming too complicated.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: And I would move that we just consider the bill that came over from the Senate and

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: go with that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, the moment, with that one change, would you leave it the way it is, and don't change it, and then we will schedule it for final committee discussion and vote. Okay?

[Chris Rutland (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So I

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just wanna make sure, so we're gonna keep, we've got version 1.2 from

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: With five one word change to it, or phrase change.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then, so you want to change to this one in terms of the line of duty for these additional categories? Yeah. What do you want that to say?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You said experiencing, what was it you said?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just suggested a couple of ways. So one was responding to an emergency situation, the other was involving an individual or individuals experiencing a mental health or emotional crisis. Mean, I can see both of those.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, I like the latter, but we still have one more shot at it, yes.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Which one? Why can't, oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. We have a committee discussion, and in that discussion, decide whether we will keep The original? The original bill that

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's exactly what I intended

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: to the senate.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: That's what I intended the language

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: for this. I'm just trying to have the language. I mean, for example, I personally prefer this language to the one that came over, but we can have it out when we debate it. In other words, it'll be easy enough to instruct him or to just take that, you know, go back to the Senate version. We will have that choice. Yes?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: I'm not sure if I'm getting weedy or not, but I'm just curious if somebody, just call them Ride Along, just sort and that person does die. Yes. And it wasn't a mental health issue that they were responding to. Are they still covered? If they die Well, isn't this in the line of duty?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: If they were let's say they just happened to be riding along for a bank robbery?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: No. That's not what I mean. What do you mean? Isn't this that somebody rides along with a police officer because they're dispatched and there's an issue, some kind of crisis. And if something were to happen to that person that's the ride along, they would receive the benefit. So does it matter what the reason that they were asked to ride along? It only matters their profession or just the fact that they were asked to ride along.

[Unidentified committee member]: I mean, I've been asked to ride along and, you know

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I would think that their presence there needs to be specific.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Right. To a To the collective is for.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I guess my I'm gonna postpone this further discussion until we finally have the bill, and we can make choices right then, okay?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can I just show you something? So what about this? So with respect to clinical social workers and clinical mental health counsellors, accompanying law enforcement officers to assist in responding to an emergency situation involving an individual or individuals experiencing mental health or emotional crisis, and adding the to assist means that they're not just writing a lot, but they're using their skills to assist.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Is there any reason to include anything after the word situation?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: That's the question. That's question. That's the policy question, And

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: also the committee, I mean the committees, remember that committee, they're gonna have to make the final adjudication about issues like this. Okay, any final questions of Sophie?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I just wanna check, is this, when you talk

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: about having conversations around, so this will be, okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, okay. Oh, great. Thank you. Alright, and we will Yeah, I mean, I have thoughts, I imagine we all have thoughts. We'll schedule time for a final discussion and vote, okay? And also, just so you know, members of the committee, I had a very brief conversation with the chair of appropriation in which I alerted her that there was a potential possibility that Ms. Bill would be coming back to her and have agreed to schedule a conversation with her. I have also let the speaker know the same. Okay?

[Unidentified committee member]: It looks like we're on a break till we have housing. Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's see, before we close, we have Ellen, and Ellen's scheduled at 02:45. Let's see if she comes. Why don't you see if she can come at 02:30.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's adjourn, but we may come back as early as 02:30. Committee can, we can go offline and the committee can hang around